Charles Manson becomes an advocate for global warming

From the Daily Mail, probably the worst alliance you could hope for if you are in the global warming movement. Manson says in a from prison interview:

‘Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere.

‘If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem…’ he added, trailing off.

I didn’t know they gave Internet access in prison. Or maybe it’s old magazines. Either way, not the sort of advocate you dream about having.

No doubt the UN would give him some podium time this coming Wed. to share his views and give his support to Bolivia’s agenda item regarding “Mother Earth’s” legal rights. This would be right up their alley.

His take on Helter Skelter seems to have more scientific gravitas than the one on butchering trees. OTOH, he’s more upfront with you than the hockey stick kids. Is Charles Manson to race relations what Jim Hansen is to climate?

Is he trying to gain parole?
Maybe he’s gunning for some grant funding – you know, something like a study into how many murders are committed as a result of inreased temps since 1950? – or maybe a paper along the lines of ‘AGW cooked my brain – and look what happened!’

Well… Actually if you think about it, it is not that surprising to discover that Charles Manson has joined ranks with Micheal Mann, Al Gore, James Hansen, Phil Jones and others that hate and are frankly, barking mad.

The people that don’t think that this is appropriate for WUWT need to lighten up. A big difference between proponents and deniers is our ability to laugh from time to time. Accept it for what it’s worth, have a laugh and get back to proving that the proponents are wrong, AND are miserable.

Doom mongers always attract the insane. See also Mr. “Squirrels and Froggies”. But why are todays doom mongers Greens and Warmists. What i never understood about the Greens is that they never celebrate the improvements in air or water quality that they achieved; same for warmists – after a lot of nations signed Kyoto, was there a big fiesta amongst the warmists all over the world? No. This tells me that both movements (with largely identical members) are deeply depressive systems; driving their own followers into a depressive, instable state of mind.

I am with “sceptical me” on this one. This is a story best left to other websites, amusing though it is in a macabre way.
I am old enough to remember the sheer horror of the Manson Family as it all unfolded.
Can you remove? You know it makes sense.

Arguably, the energy policies being pursued in the name of CAGW will negatively impact millions in the developing world as well as relatively impoverish ‘rich’ nations.
While I do not want to in any way to equate Manson with our politicians, the result of the actions of the latter are likely to cause more deaths and suffering than the former.
Similar analogies can be drawn with the DDT ban, opposition to GM crops, offensive wars (in both senses) etc.
Laws of unintended consequences.

This post was good for a laugh or two, but now I wonder if it really is irrelevent.

Is AGW becoming cult-like? Certainly, the likes of Manson and O. Bin Laden jumping board might suggest so. That AGW supporters would produce a video justifying unblieving children and others being blown to bloody bits is also consistent with cultish belief.

There’s some rich irony here. The whole popular mythology surrounding Manson is nothing more than media sensationalism and gross misrepresentations by the authorities. Sounds a lot like “global warming”, eh?

“The real life Charles Manson was not some charismatic leader gone bad, but a pathetic figure from the very beginning.”

Latitude says:
April 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm
[snip -over the top – Anthony]
======================================================
R. Shearer says:
April 18, 2011 at 2:08 pm
This post was good for a laugh or two, but now I wonder if it really is irrelevent.

Is AGW becoming cult-like? Certainly, the likes of Manson and O. Bin Laden jumping board might suggest so. That AGW supporters would produce a video justifying unblieving children and others being blown to bloody bits is also consistent with cultish belief.
========================================================
Thanks R. Shearer

The gas chamber at San Quentin was once referred to as the Green Room. Of course if the Bureau of Prisons wanted to make the process even more sustainable they could consider a solar powered electric chair.

Except the Unabomber read Scientific American while he was in grade school. That was in its heyday, with great columns like the Amateur Scientist, Mathematical Games, and ads for Questar telescopes that Dad wouldn’t buy for me.

At least he made me a Soma Cube and I figured out how to make hexaflexagons on my own.

I’m surprised to see that not a single person here has properly put into context that which Manson has said – he said this in a prison interview in the mid 80’s ..
Why I assume that most people here in this room were in diapers at the time, I’m not quite sure…just a hunch.

Cool. And Rev. Jim Jones, before he went into the Koolaid business, was a pioneer of early Human Rights Commissions in the U.S. (where they didn’t catch on like in Canada where they’ve been stomping jackbooted over human rights ever since.

Here’s some thoughts that I wouldn’t mind getting a response to…seriously. Because, honestly, I don’t understand your thinking at all.

I’ve observed the “sceptics” in action for many years now and I like visiting sites such as WUWT because I’m fascinated by the mindset.

One of the big complaints re the “warmists” was their apparent zeal, their claims of a consensus and their supposed unwillingness to listen to counter evidence.

So, I’m wondering, how is it then you guys can tolerate a site like this that is clearly and unequivocally one-sided to the extent that it has become a mirror to that which you say you abhor? Haven’t you become exactly what you say you despise?

I look at the side bar and I see only books that tell a completely one-sided tale. I see a never-ending stream of posts that hint at conspiracy and fraud and I see a stream of comments that unleash a torrent of abuse against science and scientists that dare depart from your line of thinking.

Now, I know you see yourselves as being in a war for truth, justice and the triumph of good over evil and, you have clearly developed a “victim” mentality in that, you believe that the other side has started the conflict but, where do you really think this debate is going? Surely, any of you with a science background must know that the only real chance that the AGW theory can fall apart is if the physics relating to climate sensitivity is proven to be significantly wrong – which is possible. But, it’s at least as possible that it won’t be. And, even if it is, what argument will you put to say your “told you so” is worth anything? What it will show is that you were willing to take a very big risk on a scientific hunch. And surely you’d have to agree that is not “conservatism”?

So, I’m interested to know if you agree that, in the case of environmentalism, it’s actually those that have aligned themselves with the conservative side of politics(!) in opposing AGW mitigation, that have become the radicals and, in my view, the extremists.

I think you guys need to just step back and have a long look at yourselves. I realize this was a post made in jest but, what would be your view if a similar post was framed in mockery by your “opponents”? If you reflexive response is “they would” or “they do”, then doesn’t that confirm my point above about projection?

Most people, if they were honest, would have to admit, they are lost in this debate. So, why do they take up arms? Is that really what they believe to be skepticism?

“…what would be your view if a similar post was framed in mockery by your ‘opponents’?”

The problem, Dean, is that we can’t post similar comments on realclimate, climate progress, etc., because they censor critical comments, and inconvenient comments that debunk their beliefs, no matter how polite those posts are. In the case of people like Gavin Schmidt, who is paid by the government, and thus is specifically barred from censoring free speech, he uses his work time to censor opposing views. What do you think of that? Is that OK with you?

Also, the public’s comments under warmist articles in the mass media tend to be as critical of the “carbon” narrative as they are here. They are beginning to see that there is no convincing evidence to back up the claims made regarding CO2, runaway global warming, climate catastrophe, etc.

None – and I mean none – of the mainstream scientists pushing the CAGW scare abides by the scientific method. They put out data that supports their cause, and they withhold the data that falsifies it. And as Climategate shows, they have deliberately fabricated years of temperature station data to show fictitious warming. If they had actual supporting evidence, they wouldn’t have to do that.

None of them believes in true transparency. Why? Because if they disclosed all of their data, methodologies, metadata and code, their CAGW conjecture would be promptly falsified and their funding cut, and they know it. So they stonewall, hiding behind their universites’ skirts, and refuse to cooperate with FOI requests. These are scientists, Dean. They should be happy, anxious even, to share their information. Instead, they hide out, terrified of scientific skeptics who want answers.

What you’re observing here and elsewhere are educated, intelligent commentators who have looked closely at the AGW claims, and found them wanting. All skeptics ask is transparency and open discussion, in which the scientists making claims about AGW willingly answer any and all questions. So far, that has never happened. Don’t you ever wonder why?

Most people, if they were honest, would have to admit, they are lost in this debate. So, why do they take up arms? Is that really what they believe to be skepticism?

It’s your own rule, Dean, which you are trying to project upon everyone else, so you should at least try following it yourself, right? Yes, you are indeed “lost” within your own vague stereotypes and useless memes. You really should try to save your own mind first.

RayG says:
April 18, 2011 at 2:33 pm
The gas chamber at San Quentin was once referred to as the Green Room. Of course if the Bureau of Prisons wanted to make the process even more sustainable they could consider a solar powered electric chair.

Don’t Get me started on how much of a laughing stock man made climate change and it’s believers in it are!

But one fact you don’t under stand is that humor is nondiscriminatory!!

“Climate experts say we should tell villagers in developing countries to reduce the amount of cooking smoke they generate to help fix global warming. You know, it’s as if these people don’t hate us enough already. I mean, they live in mud huts, they have thatch roofs, their clothes are made of straw. We pull up in a bunch of Humvees and SUVs going, ‘Hey, you want to cut the smoke out of here?'” –Jay Leno

“Here’s good news: George W. Bush says that he is committed to fighting global warming. Yeah, well, he nipped that in the bud, didn’t he? … President Bush says he’s really going to buckle down now and fight global warming. As a matter of fact, he announced today he’s sending 20,000 troops to the sun” –David Letterman

“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” –Jay Leno

“The report on climate change said that humans are very likely making the planet warmer. To which Hillary Clinton said, ‘Hey, can’t blame me for that one.'” –Jay Leno

“President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius” –Jimmy Kimmel, on fighting global warming

“Scientists say because of global warming they expect the world’s oceans to rise four and a half feet. The scientists say this can mean only one thing: Gary Coleman is going to drown.” –Conan O’Brien

“Some good news. Finally, President Bush is going to do something about global warming. He became alarmed when another chunk of ice fell off his mother.” –David Letterman

“Has anybody seen the Al Gore movie about global warming and the environment? Well, the Bush administration has seen it and they are very annoyed about the whole thing. As a matter of fact, earlier today, Dick Cheney shot a projectionist. … One very dramatic scene in the Al Gore global warming movie is when a glacier melts and they find more Al Gore ballots from the election.” –David Letterman

“President Bush told reporters he won’t see Al Gore’s documentary about the threat of global warming. He will not see it. On the other hand, Dick Cheney said he’s seen the global warming film five times, and it still cracks him up.” –Conan O’Brien

“According to a survey in this week’s Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening. The other 15% work for the White House.” –Jay Leno

“Al Gore has a hit movie called ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ I have an inconvenient truth for him: you’re still not the president. … This past weekend, Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ earned more per screen than any film in the country. … I dare say Gore’s movie is the highest grossing PowerPoint presentation in history. … Global warming: Can we live with it? … It is time we did something, namely resign ourselves to doing nothing [on screen: Follow Congress’ Lead]. … For instance, when sea levels rise, we’ll just build levees [on screen: Worked for New Orleans]” –Stephen Colbert

“Experts say this global warming is serious, and they are predicting now that by the year 2050, we will be out of party ice.” –David Letterman

“Former Vice President Al Gore starring in a new documentary about global warming. I believe it’s called [Leno snores]. … The film actually features Al Gore and explores his journey on how he first got interested in temperature change. It started back when he was vice president. He noticed how the temperature would change, like whenever Bill would walk into the room, it would get warm and whenever Hillary walked into the room, it got cold.” –Jay Leno

“President Bush said global warming is happening much quicker than he thought, and then his staff pulled him aside and said ‘It’s just springtime.'” –Jay Leno

“Al Gore is coming out with a movie about global warming called ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ It’s described as a detailed scientific view of global warming. President Bush said he just saw a film about global warming, ‘Ice Age 2; The Meltdown.’ He said, ‘It’s so much better than that boring Al Gore movie.'” –Jay Leno

“Don’t kid yourself. Global warming is no joke. Here’s how serious global warming has gotten to be in the United States. In this country global warming is so bad, we are now actually starting to warm up to Barry Bonds.” –David Letterman

“According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought.” –Jay Leno

“Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn’t chop down trees to make a book that no one will read.” –Conan O’Brien

“We estimate that there are perhaps 20,000 prehistoric hunter-gatherers frozen up in those glaciers. Now, if they simply thaw and wander around, it’s not a problem, but if they find a leader — a Captain Caveman, if you will — we’ll be facing an even more serious problem.” –Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman, on the dangers of global warming

“At a press conference yesterday NASA announced that 2005 was the hottest year on record. It is so hot, and global warming is so bad, if the presidential election were held today, Al Gore would still lose.” –Jay Leno

“Heating bills this winter are the highest they’ve been in five years, but President Bush has a plan to combat rising bills. It’s called global warming.” –Jay Leno

None of the mainstream scientists…?! Sorry but your absurdly exaggerated comment just provides confirmation of your irrationality and extremism. You expect debate and to be taken seriously with that?

Jpeden,

I’ve been a atmospheric scientist and a metrologist for 20 years and, whilst I don’t think I’m lost, I know I am still not qualified to make substantive commentary on the intricate areas of climate science. I do know that to declare one side completely right or wrong is not scientifically sound and, therefore, prudence would suggest a risk management approach would be a sensible one. To declare the risks of AGW as nonexistent or inconsequential is merely fooolhardiness in my view. I have looked into nearly all the counter claims and arguments against the fundamental science behind AGW and, generally, found them to rely on much less rigorous science than those for.

Despite the conspiratorial claims against “people like me” I love technology and western civilization and I don’t want to give up any of the advantages and comforts that come with it – for me or my children. Yet, I see the risk of that happening being much more likely in siding with the anti-AGW side than the other.

If the test of legitimacy of anything in particular is that it cannot be mocked or ridiculed, then nothing exists and we must be merely the figment of someone or something’s imagination. I find that people use mockery most when they are powerless or ineffective against something they despise.

“I’ve observed the “sceptics” in action for many years now and I like visiting sites such as WUWT because I’m fascinated by the mindset.”

“Surely, any of you with a science background must know that the only real chance that the AGW theory can fall apart is if the physics relating to climate sensitivity is proven to be significantly wrong”.
——————————————–

Go on then Dean. While being fascinated and in condescending mode to us people with a science background, why don’t you climb off your self-visualized horse and tell us what the climate sensitivity is, and how “AGW theory” and global temperatures for the past 15 years jibe – just for starters.

He was an environmentalist way back when he was preaching to his flock.

“Open your eyes. Pollution is all around you. Money is raping the earth, destroying the trees, polluting the air and water. Your children are choking and dying under your money noses. Your children cry for help and you don’t hear them. You ignore them and they come to me. The children you ignore, I will keep. Someday they will rise up and kill you to save the world.”

You want evidence of runaway global warming? I think that clearly identifies your issue. You will be convinced of AGW only when the most severe risk is proven? I.e. It is happening?! Well at least you’ve admitted that’s what it would take to convince you. Can’t you see that, once you have your proof, it will be too late?

I have asked many “sceptics” who say that, having viewed the evidence, they are not convinced: What then is the evidence that would convince you? What would you have to see to be convinced? They would have to know that to have made their judgement. Never got an answer.

What would I have to see to be convinced that AGW was not a threat? 1) A decoupling of global temp and co2 for 20 to 30 years ( effectively disproving some fairly fundamental physics) and or 2) Proof that climate sensitivity was negligible enough not to pose a threat.

PhilinCalifornia,

I just admitted that I don’t have the expertise to provide you with that sort of scientific judgement. Yet you call me condescending! Additionally, isn’t that where the real, largely unsettled debate lies?

“You want evidence of runaway global warming? I think that clearly identifies your issue. You will be convinced of AGW only when the most severe risk is proven? I.e. It is happening?! Well at least you’ve admitted that’s what it would take to convince you. Can’t you see that, once you have your proof, it will be too late? I have asked many “sceptics” who say that, having viewed the evidence, they are not convinced: What then is the evidence that would convince you? What would you have to see to be convinced?”

DeanL,

I would have to see temperatures rising in line with rising CO2. That is not happening. There is zero evidence of any runaway global warming. None. Your belief is based on a complete fantasy. As beneficial CO2 increases, global temperatures are declining. Your belief system is debunked, yet you still believe. Classic cognitive dissonance.

DeanL says: April 18, 2011 at 8:54 pm
” What then is the evidence that would convince you?”

You could start with temperature rising as a result of a rise in carbon dioxide concentrations.

As an intro start with the last 15 years, the 15 decades, the 15 centuries, then 15 thousand years, 15 million years etc.

Feel free to pick the thermosphere, statosphere, troposphere or oceans that you think consistently has a temperature rise after a carbon dioxide rise and a drop in temperature after a carbon dioxide drop.

Then explain what caused the carbon dioxide drops in the past and why this will never happen again in the future.

One last thing, use only actual measured data, no computer models or papers that do not contain actual data.

Use real data, show your work.

If all the data from nature supports your conjecture in all cases and under all circumstances and at all times then it might be worth a look.

I just admitted that I don’t have the expertise to provide you with that sort of scientific judgement. Yet you call me condescending! Additionally, isn’t that where the real, largely unsettled debate lies?
—————————————–

When someone says they are fascinated by my mindset, I’m figuring that they (a) might like to be educated or they (b), think my mindset is defective and get some jollies studying it. Your tone made me think it was (b), hence the c-word (condescending).

Yes, the climate sensitivity is an issue that is clearly not settled nor, more importantly, quantified.

So, apologies are in order. I can see how you might be fascinated by people who want to set straight the record that 5th rate scientists (Jones, Trenberth, Mann, Hansen) put in place as established science while no one was looking.

Andrew30 says:
April 18, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“Use real data, show your work.
If all the data from nature supports your conjecture in all cases and under all circumstances and at all times then it might be worth a look.

“Most people, if they were honest, would have to admit, they are lost in this debate. So, why do they take up arms? Is that really what they believe to be skepticism?”

Do you really not “get it” Dean? The history of mankind is tribal. What you often see on this site (and any others) is the distillation of “tribal thought”. A great number of respondents don’t give a whit about “truth for its own sake”, but merely respond in a knee-jerk response to the “tribal line of thought”.

What you should appreciate about this site, however, is its historical significance. This site, for all the blustering of tribal nonsense of many of its adherence, is founded on “factual skepticism”. This site is the only one I know that religiously admits comments from all quarters. It’s the only site I know that would have published my (mild though it was) criticism of its founder. This site is the scientific equivalent of “the cult of Galileo” which, at a time when mindless church doctrine and a compliant public proscribed that the world was the center of the Universe, sensed that “something ain’t right in the Vatican”.

. . . This site is the scientific equivalent of “the cult of Galileo” which, at a time when mindless church doctrine and a compliant public proscribed that the world was the center of the Universe, sensed that “something ain’t right in the Vatican”. . . .

I don’t want to appear contrary but surely if , as we are told by Einstein , that “the Universe is a sphere of infinite radius” then we are at the center of the Universe. The undeniable fact of our not being at the center of the solar system or even the galaxy is another thing all together.

. . . What would I have to see to be convinced that AGW was not a threat? 1) A decoupling of global temp and co2 for 20 to 30 years ( effectively disproving some fairly fundamental physics) and or 2) Proof that climate sensitivity was negligible enough not to pose a threat.

Since DeanL claims to be an expert on atmospheric physics, maybe he can give me the details on the difference between the cooling effect of GHGs and the warming effect. All I hear about is the warming effect but if the physics of GHGs is as claimed then there must also be a cooling effect.

Just to make it clear what I mean. The warming effect is (1) the interception of certain bands of radiation and radiating 1/2 the energy back to Earth. The cooling effect is (2) the heating of the GHGs by contact with the rest of the atmosphere and radiating 1/2 the energy to space. The relative difference of these two factors will net out the true warming effect of GHGs. I’ve never seen any climate scientist explain the effects together, they only mention (1). Why is that?

“…I find that people use mockery most when they are powerless or ineffective against
something they despise”

I knew you would have a smart ass comment to reply with! And as I understood YOUR typical arrogant mindset, I knew that you wouldn’t have the sense to investigate my claims on humor, that is why I specifically chose a web site with mainly humor on man made climate change from a non-skeptical point of view.

Therefore what your comment above actually means is as follows,

“believers in man made climate change use mockery most when they are powerless or ineffective against something they despise”

So… “Run along now there’s a good chap” (to quote Willis Eschenbach lol) and let the skeptics discuss their opinions in peace before you single-handedly destroy the AGW religion and bring down the entire church of climate change.

I think the prisoner population is a heretofore untapped research resource. We should embrace our criminal population as people with lots of time on their hands, but little funding. This is much more useful than what we have now, which is people with lots of public money in their pockets, but no time to do the little things. I suggest creating an incentive for the prison population. For instance, a warden could say, “Anyone who wins a nobel prize in a basic science gets early parole.” The best part about it, of course, is the prisoners would basically be sleeping in their lab, no creative time lost to commuting or annoying things like laundry and food purchase/preparation!

You want evidence of runaway global warming? I think that clearly identifies your issue. You will be convinced of AGW only when the most severe risk is proven?

Deanl, you say you are a meteorologist for the past 20 years, and you also talk about the “AGW Theory”. I guess you do not realize you just slammed the field of meteorology as being “non-scientific”?

your first problem is that there is no theory. In fact, there is not even a valid hypothesis yet. You have statements made by “knowledgable” scientists that something is happening, and yet no data, tests or results to start to test any hypothesis (the models are woefully wrong, and that is the extent of the “proof” offered.

And you do not even know what the null hypothesis is or you would never have made the statement above!

I do not know if you are blowing smoke or are really who you say you are. But if the field of meteorology is anything like you, then it is clear there is no science in Climate science. At least not from the warmists side.

Perhaps you can salvage your reputation and that of the warmist camp by being honest about who you are and what your qualifications are? It is clear by your writings that you do not know what you are talking about.

Well, gee, uh thanks for the heads-up? Now, I know “global warming” to be a lie, if the advocate they choose to be the siren is Charles Manson!! I wonder why they don’t choose him to be the advocate for the NWO??? That would really put things in perspective…..

I have looked into nearly all the counter claims and arguments against the fundamental science behind AGW and, generally, found them to rely on much less rigorous science than those for.

Dean, surely you can recognize that your above statement is extremely vague, at best? That is, are you aware of the fact that “Climate Science’s” *CO2=CAGW* is not only not based upon real, scientific method and principle science, but also specifically avoids using it?